[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
Ever read the book Dangerous Nation? If not, I think you’d find it interesting.
[/quote]
I actually attended a lecture by Robert Kagan in London School of Economics yesterday so I was pleasantly surprised to read someone bringing that book up. The whole idea of America returning to being this peaceful, isolationist power is absurd. Their willingness to promote their ideology and protect their interests is not some sort of anomaly of the Neocon era.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
lifty,
Never mind.
JeffR
As a handy-dandy rule, if you ever have a question for Lifticus, save yourself the trouble and go to:
…and type your keywords into the “search” box.
Works for anything.
Thoughts on “high crimes and misdemeanors”, what cheese to pair with which wine, and movie criticism.
The great thing for Lifty is, he never has to think again - he has a pre-recorded answer at his fingertips. No wonder anarcho-libertarianism is such a hoot - think of all the extra free time you have.
That is, until Lifticus determines he is a communist again - or some other radical persuasion. Give him a few days.[/quote]
Thunder,
You are correct. I shouldn’t take advantage of the poor guy. It isn’t like there are Constitutional Scholars who struggle with these issues all the time.
ron paul uses the Constitution in order to throw self-serving tantrums.
By the way, I haven’t missed the message you are sending via your avatars.
Cump and Blackjack would fight this war very differently.
lixy’s ancestors learned that the hard way in the Philippines.
JeffR
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
With regards to foreign intervention…
I don’t think Jefferson’s actions are in any way a violation of the idea of
“avoiding entangling alliances.” The Barbary States were attacking our merchant ships, holding our citizens for ransom and using physical force as a means of extortion. Yes, Jefferson militarilly intervened, and I doubt very much Ron Paul, or any other professed non-interventionist, would take issue with that.
Yes, but how about Jefferson’s desire to get America involved in a war against the British to help during the French Revolution AFTER the terror had started? Really, it wasn’t until after Citizen Genet started to talk shit on Washington that Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of the republicans took a step back from their heated efforts to pick a fight with England.
Washington consistently spoke of the American empire. Hamilton was a huge proponent of empire. Washington’s farewell address was written almost completely BY Hamilton and the talk of “avoiding entangling alliances” was really a partisan slap in the face by Hamilton to the Republicans. Shortly following the XYZ affair it was Hamilton pushing for war against France. Go figure.
Some thoughts on the Barbary Pirates: we had been paying tribute to them for years. Thanks to Jefferson’s desire for a coastal defense force instead of a large navy and his desire to wait to secure a coalition to fight we had to wait until the ransoms became too large and we had the navy that John Adams built to do the fighting.
“When federalists suggested that it was high time America had its own navy to combat the plunder of American shipping by Barbary pirates, Madison (Jefferson’s sidekick, my words) suggested, in all seriousness, that the United States hire the Portuguese navy instead.”-Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton
mike[/quote]
Mike,
I can’t put it much better. I did want to add that Jefferson also sent a man named Dale WITHOUT conferring with Congress.
He set the precedent for the Executive to act on his own.
It was only AFTER success in the War with the Barbary Pirates that he advised and received Congressional support.
Here is the most salient point:
From: http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%20and%20the%20Barbary%20Pirates.htm
This is anathema to what ron paul preaches as our “tradition.”
It is also directly contrary to what ron paul views as the correct way to go to war. He’s always whining about Congress’ inviolable war powers.
In short, ron paul’s contention that the U.S. and our Founding Fathers in particular have a tradition of non-interventionalism is false. Further, ron paul is constantly castigating Bush for not involving Congress appropriately with regard to Iraq. However, one of our principle Founding Fathers, set a precedent that had EVEN LESS participation of Congress during the early stages of armed conflict.
ron paul either doesn’t know history or he’s twisting it to suit his own ends.
JeffR
[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
So who is planning on voting in light of all this debating and discussing?[/quote]
I am. So should everyone.
I say the act of voting is more important than the invidividual candidates.
Even if you throw away your vote on ron paul, the Easter Bunny, Grimace, or some other clown, you should vote.
JeffR
One more great interview. He answers practical questions on what he would do as president.
Part 1:
Part 2:
[quote]Nikiforos wrote:
I actually attended a lecture by Robert Kagan in London School of Economics yesterday so I was pleasantly surprised to read someone bringing that book up. The whole idea of America returning to being this peaceful, isolationist power is absurd. Their willingness to promote their ideology and protect their interests is not some sort of anomaly of the Neocon era. [/quote]
Excellent point. Nevertheless, the drums of war were particularly resounding the last 7 years.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The great thing for Lifty is, he never has to think again - he has a pre-recorded answer at his fingertips. No wonder anarcho-libertarianism is such a hoot - think of all the extra free time you have.
[/quote]
As opposed to your all-knowing, pre-ordained thought?
Believe me, I did not arrive at these conclusions over-night. Quit pretending you know something about people you’ve never met.
Now that I believe I have a correct theory to base my assumptions on, I am free to think about other things. You are correct…it has been liberating.
Other than that, your crass generalizations don’t mean anything.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Jefferson undoubtedly was mindful of the Constitution’s limitations on the President’s war powers. In general, Jefferson had favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and he knew that as President he was limited to defensive measures without having approval from Congress to act offensively against the Pirates. He was bound by the “chains of the Constitution.” Surprisingly, however, these thoughts did not stop Jefferson from dispatching Robert Dale to the Mediterranean, with orders to find out if any or all of the Barbary powers had declared war on the United States. If only the Bey of Tripoli had declared war, Dale was to blockade Tripoli’s port. If any other of the Barbary states had declared war, then Dale was to deploy his troops as he saw fit in order to “protect our commerce and chastise their insolence-by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and Vessels wherever (he should) find them.”(19) This order by President Jefferson authorized actions that clearly were beyond the line of “defensive” actions authorized by the Constitution.
From: http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%20and%20the%20Barbary%20Pirates.htm
[/quote]
I don’t mean to harp on this point, because we agree in the overall assessment, just not about the Barbary War. You are referencing an undergraduate theses. While the quote he is using may be accurate, I don’t think his conclusion is. First, Tripoli had already declared war on the US before Dale was sent out. Secondly, Congress was not in session at the time (nor could they have easily been called to session), but Jefferson did inform Congressman Nicholas of the mission and when Congress reconvened, they approved the action. Lastly, in Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, he specifically says that because Congress had not authorized war, he did not venture beyond defensive measures. It seems to me that if a nation posses an existential and immediate threat(also in violation of the Treaty of 1796, I believe), the president has the power to mitigate that threat. There is a stark difference between what Jefferson did, and our actions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc, etc. So again - this is really the crux of all this - I argue that Ron Paul, and any other “non-interventionist,” would have done much the same as Jefferson against the Barbary pirates.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Mike,
I can’t put it much better. I did want to add that Jefferson also sent a man named Dale WITHOUT conferring with Congress.
He set the precedent for the Executive to act on his own.[/quote]
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he set the precedent, but he certainly expanded the powers of his office. [quote]
It was only AFTER success in the War with the Barbary Pirates that he advised and received Congressional support.[/quote]
He did the same thing with the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson envisioned an America of yeoman farmers. To him, this required expanding frontiers and his dream of the west. When he was offered the territory, Jefferson and Madison knew its purchase was unconstitutional. He was so aware of this that he drafted an amendment to help the president in such circumstances. He never sent it; instead he decided to buy it knowing that Congress would approve it later.
For what it is worth though in the defense of those that make this point. I believe it was Edmund Randolf that started a splinter group among republicans over Jefferson’s blatant hipocracy in his beliefs and his vigorous executive style. So it wasn’t as if all of America cheered him on for his use of executive power.
Now if I can only get back to not badmouthing Paul…since I am voting for the guy.
mike
[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Jefferson undoubtedly was mindful of the Constitution’s limitations on the President’s war powers. In general, Jefferson had favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and he knew that as President he was limited to defensive measures without having approval from Congress to act offensively against the Pirates. He was bound by the “chains of the Constitution.” Surprisingly, however, these thoughts did not stop Jefferson from dispatching Robert Dale to the Mediterranean, with orders to find out if any or all of the Barbary powers had declared war on the United States. If only the Bey of Tripoli had declared war, Dale was to blockade Tripoli’s port. If any other of the Barbary states had declared war, then Dale was to deploy his troops as he saw fit in order to “protect our commerce and chastise their insolence-by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and Vessels wherever (he should) find them.”(19) This order by President Jefferson authorized actions that clearly were beyond the line of “defensive” actions authorized by the Constitution.
From: http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%20and%20the%20Barbary%20Pirates.htm
I don’t mean to harp on this point, because we agree in the overall assessment, just not about the Barbary War. You are referencing an undergraduate theses. While the quote he is using may be accurate, I don’t think his conclusion is. First, Tripoli had already declared war on the US before Dale was sent out. Secondly, Congress was not in session at the time (nor could they have easily been called to session), but Jefferson did inform Congressman Nicholas of the mission and when Congress reconvened, they approved the action. Lastly, in Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, he specifically says that because Congress had not authorized war, he did not venture beyond defensive measures. It seems to me that if a nation posses an existential and immediate threat(also in violation of the Treaty of 1796, I believe), the president has the power to mitigate that threat. There is a stark difference between what Jefferson did, and our actions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc, etc. So again - this is really the crux of all this - I argue that Ron Paul, and any other “non-interventionist,” would have done much the same as Jefferson against the Barbary pirates. [/quote]
Agreed. I certainly don’t think it’s fair to paint them both with the same brush.
mike
[quote]JeffR wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Jeff,
I am a bit surprised at your loyalty to the system.
You were actually surprised by this?
al-a-baby:
Sorry to hear that your rock shelter isn’t meeting your needs.
Too bad you’ve decided to crawl back out from underneath it.
[/quote]
JeffRina, JeffRina, JeffRina,
Cheap shots and poor insults is all you have? You’ve done nothing but cheerlead for the RNC establishment for the last several years. Do you truly think by now backing Ruddy Crossdresser that it will erase your cheerleading track record? That kind of thought process ranks right up there with some others on this board that backed all of GWB’s decisions in the past, but now want to claim that he’s not a REAL Republican because they now see the consequences of his stupid decisions.
The majority of your views have been the very definition of establishment. Unlike most of your Repub cronies, I do not suffer from convenient memory loss. I remember all of your cheerleading and insults to those who didn’t jump on the bandwagon with you. At least own up to your past.
I agree, Rudy is not typical Republican establishment. He is far more honest about his past dirt, quirks and perversions. I’m surprised he made it this far.
Too late. You did that to yourself a long time ago.
[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
There is a stark difference between what Jefferson did, and our actions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc, etc. So again - this is really the crux of all this - I argue that Ron Paul, and any other “non-interventionist,” would have done much the same as Jefferson against the Barbary pirates. [/quote]
Yes. The entire thesis of Ron Paul’s foreign policy rests on this assumption. I believe this to be correct.
There is a slight difference between interventionism and protectionism. Jefferson did not ascribe to the notion of protectionism except when our interests were directly threatened.
There is nothing that dictates we cannot intervene to help out our interests; where it fails to work is when those interests are part of the internal affairs of other nations. We have no say in other countries’ politics.
This is going to paint me as a nerd but…I look at this as the “Prime Directive” that was used in the Star Trek series (except that it has nothing to do with “pre-warp drive civilizations” in our instance). Simply put, all nations are sovereign unto themselves and therefore should defend their own territory and be free of external, domestic government authority (viceroy proxy).
[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Jefferson undoubtedly was mindful of the Constitution’s limitations on the President’s war powers. In general, Jefferson had favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and he knew that as President he was limited to defensive measures without having approval from Congress to act offensively against the Pirates. He was bound by the “chains of the Constitution.” Surprisingly, however, these thoughts did not stop Jefferson from dispatching Robert Dale to the Mediterranean, with orders to find out if any or all of the Barbary powers had declared war on the United States. If only the Bey of Tripoli had declared war, Dale was to blockade Tripoli’s port. If any other of the Barbary states had declared war, then Dale was to deploy his troops as he saw fit in order to “protect our commerce and chastise their insolence-by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and Vessels wherever (he should) find them.”(19) This order by President Jefferson authorized actions that clearly were beyond the line of “defensive” actions authorized by the Constitution.
From: http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%20and%20the%20Barbary%20Pirates.htm
I don’t mean to harp on this point, because we agree in the overall assessment, just not about the Barbary War. You are referencing an undergraduate theses. While the quote he is using may be accurate, I don’t think his conclusion is. First, Tripoli had already declared war on the US before Dale was sent out. Secondly, Congress was not in session at the time (nor could they have easily been called to session), but Jefferson did inform Congressman Nicholas of the mission and when Congress reconvened, they approved the action. Lastly, in Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address, he specifically says that because Congress had not authorized war, he did not venture beyond defensive measures. It seems to me that if a nation posses an existential and immediate threat(also in violation of the Treaty of 1796, I believe), the president has the power to mitigate that threat. There is a stark difference between what Jefferson did, and our actions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc, etc. So again - this is really the crux of all this - I argue that Ron Paul, and any other “non-interventionist,” would have done much the same as Jefferson against the Barbary pirates. [/quote]
Hey, Ivan.
I think you are missing the point about “If Tripoli declares War.” As in they hadn’t declared war when Dale left. Further, he gives him broad powers to take the war to the enemy (whoever he is at the time) to “intervene” if you will.
Again, for ron paul, telling a congressman about actions he was already going to do, wouldn’t be enough.
The point is that the Executive sent out a military leader with a sweeping mandate WITHOUT receiving full Congressional approval.
JeffR
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
JeffR wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Jeff,
I am a bit surprised at your loyalty to the system.
You were actually surprised by this?
al-a-baby:
Sorry to hear that your rock shelter isn’t meeting your needs.
Too bad you’ve decided to crawl back out from underneath it.
JeffRina, JeffRina, JeffRina,
Cheap shots and poor insults is all you have? You’ve done nothing but cheerlead for the RNC establishment for the last several years. Do you truly think by now backing Ruddy Crossdresser that it will erase your cheerleading track record? That kind of thought process ranks right up there with some others on this board that backed all of GWB’s decisions in the past, but now want to claim that he’s not a REAL Republican because they now see the consequences of his stupid decisions.
The majority of your views have been the very definition of establishment. Unlike most of your Repub cronies, I do not suffer from convenient memory loss. I remember all of your cheerleading and insults to those who didn’t jump on the bandwagon with you. At least own up to your past.
Whenever someone says that Rudy is the “establishment” or the “system” I yawn. Using those tag-lines must be easier than actually thinking about his positions. The whole, “humans usually take the path of least resistance.”
I can’t think of any serious Republican candidate that is less “ESTABLISHMENT/SYSTEM” than Rudy.
He’s causing many Republicans to prioritize and come up with a more broad based approach to thinking.
This can only help attract more moderates and independents to the Republicans.
I agree, Rudy is not typical Republican establishment. He is far more honest about his past dirt, quirks and perversions. I’m surprised he made it this far.
I DO NOT want to be defined by the far right loons.
Period.
JeffRina
Too late. You did that to yourself a long time ago.
[/quote]
al-a-baby:
I like JeffRina. My pals have given me RudyRection and JeffRina within the past 24 hours!!! I’ve been screaming for some decent insults for the past 12 months. Jeff the Dumb just wasn’t cutting it.
I’m not one of those people who have withdrawn support for George W. Bush. However, I disagree with some things he’s done.
That has absolutely nothing to do with any polling data nor what my “pals” think about him.
Since I never reference polls and you know full well that I don’t shy away from a fight, you must, at least, concede this point.
I am going to love you and your pals trying to impugn Rudy’s personal life.
It’s going to be like a bonanza of hypocrisy!!! I’m going to hammer you with your own quotes circa 1992-1998 until your heads spin.
Finally, my support for Rudy clearly shows that I am a Republican who said (and meant) that a politician’s personal life (74 wives, cross dressing, lisps) just doesn’t matter to me.
As long as they haven’t broken laws (billy boy–perjury, obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment case) I really don’t care.
JeffRina with a RudyRection
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is going to paint me as a nerd but…I look at this as the “Prime Directive” that was used in the Star Trek series (except that it has nothing to do with “pre-warp drive civilizations” in our instance). Simply put, all nations are sovereign unto themselves and therefore should defend their own territory and be free of external, domestic government authority (viceroy proxy).[/quote]
Bad example. There isn’t a single episode of Star Trek where the prime directive is not violated repeatedly and left bleeding from every orifice before the episode if half-way through.
Shatner usually manages to do it before the first commercial.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is going to paint me as a nerd but…I look at this as the “Prime Directive” that was used in the Star Trek series (except that it has nothing to do with “pre-warp drive civilizations” in our instance). Simply put, all nations are sovereign unto themselves and therefore should defend their own territory and be free of external, domestic government authority (viceroy proxy).
Bad example. There isn’t a single episode of Star Trek where the prime directive is not violated repeatedly and left bleeding from every orifice before the episode if half-way through.
Shatner usually manages to do it before the first commercial.
[/quote]
Heh, true enough.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
al-a-baby:
I like JeffRina. My pals have given me RudyRection and JeffRina within the past 24 hours!!! I’ve been screaming for some decent insults for the past 12 months. Jeff the Dumb just wasn’t cutting it.
I’m not one of those people who have withdrawn support for George W. Bush. However, I disagree with some things he’s done.
[/quote]
JeffRina:
I didn’t say that you personally withdrew your support from GWB. I said that you attempting to rewrite your establishment cheerleading by putting on an anti-establishment front was similar to OTHERS that withdrew there support of GWB after they found out the truth. Please read before posting. It saves a great deal of typing on your part.
This is true. You never reference polls and you never shy away from a fight. That is why I enjoy ribbing you. You keep it fun.
I don’t particularly care about Rudy’s personal life other than to use it to mess with you. Like I said, I found it refreshing that he is open and honest about it. Many of them are not.
I would like to see you try this one considering that I wasn’t even posting on here circa 1992-1998. Please proceed.
It doesn’t matter to me either. Never has, never will. Unless it violates their stance in office (i.e. gay politicians that spout anti-gay messages, anti-abortion politicians that paid for abortions for their children etc.). It is just something to use to get people in the spirit of this is all in fun.
Wow, I didn’t think you would be so hard on Clarence Thomas like that.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Shatner usually manages to do it before the first commercial.
[/quote]
There would have been no story otherwise. Still the premise is true.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
Shatner usually manages to do it before the first commercial.
There would have been no story otherwise. Still the premise is true.[/quote]
Even taken seriously, it doesn’t work. No nation is a perfectly isolated and self-contained “island” (or planet, to go with your analogy). They all trade with each other and the fact that natural resources are not equally available to all makes it inevitable that competition for these will occur.
Even North Korea, which might be the most isolated country, trades with many other nations.
And even if you never interfere directly in a country’s affair, you’d interfere indirectly just by, for example, driving up the price of some commodity because you use more and more of it.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
JeffR wrote:
al-a-baby:
I like JeffRina. My pals have given me RudyRection and JeffRina within the past 24 hours!!! I’ve been screaming for some decent insults for the past 12 months. Jeff the Dumb just wasn’t cutting it.
I’m not one of those people who have withdrawn support for George W. Bush. However, I disagree with some things he’s done.
JeffRina:
I didn’t say that you personally withdrew your support from GWB. I said that you attempting to rewrite your establishment cheerleading by putting on an anti-establishment front was similar to OTHERS that withdrew there support of GWB after they found out the truth. Please read before posting. It saves a great deal of typing on your part.[/quote]
al-a-baby:
I see what you are saying. I wanted to make sure you understood that I’m NOT one of those people who gives a care about polling data.
I’m not happy with several things undertaken by the Republican Establishment. For instance: The immigration reform fiasco, ridiculous spending, and those dinks who wanted to bail on Iraq.
Further, my support of Rudy is PROOF POSITIVE that the Republican Establishment ISN’T my number one priority.
[quote]That has absolutely nothing to do with any polling data nor what my “pals” think about him.
Since I never reference polls and you know full well that I don’t shy away from a fight, you must, at least, concede this point.
This is true. You never reference polls and you never shy away from a fight. That is why I enjoy ribbing you. You keep it fun.[/quote]
Thanks. It goes both ways.
[quote]I am going to love you and your pals trying to impugn Rudy’s personal life.
I don’t particularly care about Rudy’s personal life other than to use it to mess with you. Like I said, I found it refreshing that he is open and honest about it. Many of them are not.[/quote]
Ok, I’ll be watching you.
[quote]It’s going to be like a bonanza of hypocrisy!!! I’m going to hammer you with your own quotes circa 1992-1998 until your heads spin.
I would like to see you try this one considering that I wasn’t even posting on here circa 1992-1998. Please proceed.[/quote]
True. But, I just have a feeling you’ve uttered the famous “Who cares about a blowjob?” Or, “Let him do his job. His personal life is personal.”
[quote]Finally, my support for Rudy clearly shows that I am a Republican who said (and meant) that a politician’s personal life (74 wives, cross dressing, lisps) just doesn’t matter to me.
It doesn’t matter to me either. Never has, never will. Unless it violates their stance in office (i.e. gay politicians that spout anti-gay messages, anti-abortion politicians that paid for abortions for their children etc.). It is just something to use to get people in the spirit of this is all in fun.[/quote]
It CAN be fun. However, there are quite a few people who truly believe that clinton did nothing more than get a blowjob. Further, you’ll hear plenty of these same “It’s his personal life” people discussing Rudy’s marriage.
[quote]As long as they haven’t broken laws (billy boy–perjury, obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment case) I really don’t care.
JeffRina with a RudyRection
Wow, I didn’t think you would be so hard on Clarence Thomas like that.
[/quote]
al-a, You can do much better than this. I’ve seen you.
The Clarence Thomas/anita hill “hearings” were a fiasco. What a bunch political nonsense.
If the sexual harassment was real, she should have filed charges.
JeffR